* Robin Holt <h...@sgi.com> wrote: > I have the patches sort-of finished. The patch set starts by > moving the halt/shutdown/reboot functions over to a new > kernel/reboot.c, next patch gets a checkpatch.pl cleanup to > work, third patch is essentially the below patch against the > new file, and the fourth patch introduces a kernel boot parameter. > > That said, I don't like them because of the 'stable' marking for > these patches. I think I am going submit them with the > existing patch first in the series, then introduce the kernel parameter, > then move them to kernel/reboot.c, and finally pass checkpatch.pl. > > Does that sound alright?
Yeah, that ordering sounds right. If there are no objections from others I'll first apply the first patch (with a -stable tag), test it for a day, then apply the rest. Even patch #1 probably won't make it for v3.9-final [there's too many potential downsides IMHO], but this could be one of the cases where marking a patch for -stable and merging it in the merge window is legit. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/